No one can deny that average global temperatures have risen about 1.2 degrees/F during two periods: 1910-1940 and 1975-2000, or, 55 years of the past 150 years of recorded weather. The other 95 years the average temps have either remained stable or dropped, including from 1940-1975. Those prolonged periods of temperature stabilization, alone, poke rather large holes in the entire hypothesis of AGW. If AGW had real substance, we would not see prolonged periods of cooling during periods of massive human C02 output. It doesn't mean it's not possible, it simply means it isn't corroborated in this most fundamental of scientific observations:

Furthermore, there is not one, single scientific peer-reviewed paper that states, categorically, that human-produced C02 increasing the greenhouse effect is causing the earth to warm, or the climate to change. Studies that claim the oceans are absorbing C02 from the atmosphere make no mention of the hundreds of undersea volcanoes that spew millions of tons of hydrocarbons and C02 into the oceans...why?...because the scientific community has NO IDEA how much C02 active undersea volcanoes add to the oceans. So...how do scientists now human-produced C02 is being absorbed into the oceans? They don't...more bad science.

One does not have to be a scientist to understand the fundamental principles of common sense, one merely has to be open to the information revealed as a result of scientific method.

The primary reason AGW proponents focus on the last 150 has nothing to do with C02, it has to do, primarily, with keeping long-term climate cycles out of the discussion. Both the Greenland and Vostok ice core samples clearly indicate the earth has seen dramatically higher average global temperatures than we have now, and on numerous occasions during the last 10,000, when the current warming period actually began after the last ice age, and long before human C02 was an issue:

I do not deny the POSSIBILITY that human C02 could POSSIBLY increase the greenhouse effect, however, that it is causing global warming simply hasn't been proven. On the contrary, the scientific community knows little or nothing about atmospheric water vapour, the largest component of the greenhouse effect. Without understand how ALL the greenhouse gases interact, how is it even possible to know what effects those gases might have combined. It isn't.

Besides, anyone that nows anything about this subject knows the VAST majority of C02 is not produced by humans, it is produced naturally, and that C02 comprises a minute fraction of the total atmosphere compared to air and nitrogen. Again, more common sense not requiring a science degree, just the ability to read.

AGW is bad science, the so-called 'scientific consensus' (not part of the scientific method) supporting AGW knows it's bad science, and that is precisely why a non-scientific body like the IPCC has been created to propagate this nonsense because no real scientist wants to present a paper for peer-review that states, categorically, C02 is increasing the greenhouse effect and increasing global temperatures. Why? Because the evidence just isn't there.

Correlation does not always imply causation, but in this instance I think it's fairly safe to say that the increase in global temperature is likely to be due to the CO2 emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels...

EDIT and while I'm here:

Besides, anyone that nows anything about this subject knows the VAST majority of C02 is not produced by humans, it is produced naturally, and that C02 comprises a minute fraction of the total atmosphere compared to air and nitrogen. Again, more common sense not requiring a science degree, just the ability to read.

Source please

You may also wish to note this graph:

CO2 levels are much higher now than they ever reached in a period of 600,000 years. What do you think might be causing this?

I'd say digging up vast stores of dead organic matter and burning it at an alarming rate, whilst destroying much of the world's rainforests might have a little something to do with it...

I'm curious as to whether you think the aforementioned activity has any effect on the climate at all?

Breur9991 wrote:No one can deny that average global temperatures have risen about 1.2 degrees/F during two periods: 1910-1940 and 1975-2000, or, 55 years of the past 150 years of recorded weather. The other 95 years the average temps have either remained stable or dropped, including from 1940-1975.

What you're missing out on is: Has the temperature in general increased or has it not? You only speak of two periods, but what of the overall picture? The graphic you show actually demonstrates that point fairly well: The overall rise in temperature has been about 0.6,°C overall.

For example, it is a fact that Arctic sea ice has declined in both thickness and extent in the last decades, so have glaciers.

Breur9991 wrote:Those prolonged periods of temperature stabilization, alone, poke rather large holes in the entire hypothesis of AGW. If AGW had real substance, we would not see prolonged periods of cooling during periods of massive human C02 output. It doesn't mean it's not possible, it simply means it isn't corroborated in this most fundamental of scientific observations

I'd suggest Potholer54's excellent video 8. Climate Change -- Has the Earth been cooling? on that very matter. You're expecting a linear increase in temperature, but anyone who knows anything about meteorology will tell you that that's not what we expect.

Breur9991 wrote:Furthermore, there is not one, single scientific peer-reviewed paper that states, categorically, that human-produced C02 increasing the greenhouse effect is causing the earth to warm, or the climate to change.

What a convoluted sentence. No, CO2 isn't the only thing that's increasing the temperature, there are other factors, too! Once again, potholer54's tp the rescue with 5. Climate Change -- isn't it natural?

Breur9991 wrote:Studies that claim the oceans are absorbing C02 from the atmosphere make no mention of the hundreds of undersea volcanoes that spew millions of tons of hydrocarbons and C02 into the oceans...why?...because the scientific community has NO IDEA how much C02 active undersea volcanoes add to the oceans. So...how do scientists now human-produced C02 is being absorbed into the oceans? They don't...more bad science.

Bollocks. For example, Mà¶rner (2002) does the calculations and comes up with roughly 242 million tonnes. (min-max = 65-319mT) But humans release about 30 BILLION tonnes, so even the highest estimate is still 100 times less than what we produce.

Breur9991 wrote:The primary reason AGW proponents focus on the last 150 has nothing to do with C02, it has to do, primarily, with keeping long-term climate cycles out of the discussion. Both the Greenland and Vostok ice core samples clearly indicate the earth has seen dramatically higher average global temperatures than we have now, and on numerous occasions during the last 10,000, when the current warming period actually began after the last ice age, and long before human C02 was an issue:

Is that really the reason? I think the reason is because that's when we started taking temperature readings in the 1850's. Wikipedia quote: "As there are few instrumental records before 1850, temperatures before then must be reconstructed based on proxy methods."

The picture you provide has nothing to do with the Vostok ice core drillings, which is what I gathered you'd bring up, it's a graph showing Heinrich events and Dansgaard-Oeschger events during the last 80,000 years. What's your point? It's increasingly obvious that our climate change (the one of the last decades) is not due to these events. (You might want to look up D-O events to understand what I'm talking about.) That means something else is responsible for our climate change.

Breur9991 wrote:I do not deny the POSSIBILITY that human C02 could POSSIBLY increase the greenhouse effect, however, that it is causing global warming simply hasn't been proven. On the contrary, the scientific community knows little or nothing about atmospheric water vapour, the largest component of the greenhouse effect. Without understand how ALL the greenhouse gases interact, how is it even possible to know what effects those gases might have combined. It isn't.

Breur9991 wrote:Besides, anyone that nows anything about this subject knows the VAST majority of C02 is not produced by humans, it is produced naturally, and that C02 comprises a minute fraction of the total atmosphere compared to air and nitrogen. Again, more common sense not requiring a science degree, just the ability to read.

If you knew anything about science at all, you'd know that nature keeps CO2 (and not C02, as you state) roughly in balance. The point is, we're adding CO2 without removing any. That's why we're so dangerous.

Breur9991 wrote:AGW is bad science, the so-called 'scientific consensus' (not part of the scientific method) supporting AGW knows it's bad science, and that is precisely why a non-scientific body like the IPCC has been created to propagate this nonsense because no real scientist wants to present a paper for peer-review that states, categorically, C02 is increasing the greenhouse effect and increasing global temperatures. Why? Because the evidence just isn't there.

Snort of derision.But it has already been done, more than 30 years ago!Quote from the discussion section: "The climate change induced by anthropogenic release of CO2 is likely to be the most fascinating global geophysical experiment that man will ever conduct."

That's not to say that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas, of course not. Nobody's saying that because that's stupid. But CO2 is a very important part of anthropogenic global warming. Yes, it is happening and yes, it is largely our fault.

"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

so, your response is a graphic of observed C02 emissions overlaid with the IPCC's predictions from 1990 to 2010? Why not overlay them with the actual observed average global temperatures? That's ok...I know why...because average global temperatures dropped slightly for the entire decade from 2000-2010. How is that possible? Warming was offset by some of the coldest winters "on record" (code for "last 150 years"), that's how.Besides, climate is NOT weather. Weather is short-term measurement, climate is long-term measurement. What your graphic effectively shows us is a 20-year weather prediction, and an inaccurate one, at that.

In fact, the IPCC's predictions have been anything but accurate. They have been grossly inaccurate as is revealed by the graphic below which compares the IPCC predictions with the actual observed temperatures from 1989 - 2009. The observed temperatures are shown in black and come from HadCRUT, not Wiki, and they illustrate just how far off your IPCC predictions really were, and, still are:

The IPCC is not a scientific body...it is a political body, and a political body with an agenda: to propagate man-made global warming. A political body so blatantly biased that it allows contributing authors to "peer-review" their own contributions, a "methodology" that has been severely criticized by the scientists making the contributions as authors because the process flies in the face of scientific method, especially in its use of software models that have demonstrably inaccurate, inaccuracy whcih is the direct result of lack of scientific understanding of the earth's climate mechanisms.

average global temperatures dropped slightly for the entire decade from 2000-2010

Peer-reviewed source please

Also even if I grant your mere assertion, a slight temperature drop doesn't disprove anything...

What your graphic effectively shows us is a 20-year weather prediction, and an inaccurate one, at that.

What about the final graph I posted that shows, CO2levels are much higher now than they have been in a period of 600,000 years?

The IPCC is not a scientific body...it is a political body, and a political body with an agenda: to propagate man-made global warming. A political body so blatantly biased that it allows contributing authors to "peer-review" their own contributions, a "methodology" that has been severely criticized by the scientists making the contributions as authors because the process flies in the face of scientific method, especially in its use of software models that have demonstrably inaccurate, inaccuracy whcih is the direct result of lack of scientific understanding of the earth's climate mechanisms.

. . . The amount of carbon-dioxide released into the atmosphere versus that which is deposited by natural sources is very well understood. We know exactly what quantity of oil, coal, and gas we take from the beneath the Earth's surface each year, and its basic chemistry to see how much CO2 they can produce, and the amount of it that is produced by it, annually. In the case of natural-sources (and depletion),ecologists have been discovering new and inventive ways to study and quantify the release of greenhouse gases , be it through animal waste, or through volcanism , for almost a century now. The magnitude of the numbers themselves may be slightly off-centre for certain parts of the Earth, such as areas of the world's oceans . . . but within reasonable degrees of error, we know what are the long-term (d)effects of biological turnover, and also the average time involved (12 years if I remember rightly, and that's on the ground; and in a stead state,e.g. not a measure of "clean-up time"). Volcanoes are still a vital part of it I suppose . . . though, I say "vital" . . . volcanologists are constantly keeping quantitative measurements on the activity and chemical output of volcanoes, and even if we're off by as much as a factor of 10 (very, very unlikely); the human CO2 output is still an order of magnitude higher than all these other aforementioned sources. Besides which, we can measure the chemistry of the atmosphere itself, year by year, and calculated the changes.

When one sees it, one does begin to perceive a trend. We are very much the primary contributors of CO2 emissions . . .and:

Breur9991 wrote:["¦] The primary reason AGW proponents focus on the last 150 has nothing to do with C02, it has to do, primarily, with keeping long-term climate cycles out of the discussion. Both the Greenland and Vostok ice core samples clearly indicate the earth has seen dramatically higher average global temperatures than we have now, and on numerous occasions during the last 10,000, when the current warming period actually began after the last ice age, and long before human C02 was an issue ["¦]

This whole process of the cycling of the carbon dioxide in the water, life, rocks, and air is called the carbon cycle or the carbon dioxide cycle in geology and oceanography. There is the equivalent of 35-50 atmospheres of CO2 locked up in the Earth's rocks as carbonates. The contribution of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels by humans is a new input into this cycle with unknown consequences. We are inputting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at about 120 times the natural rate of carbon recycling (from Turco, Earth Under Siege p. 307....)

Breur9991 wrote:["¦] AGW is bad science, the so-called 'scientific consensus' (not part of the scientific method) supporting AGW knows it's bad science, and that is precisely why a non-scientific body like the IPCC has been created to propagate this nonsense because no real scientist wants to present a paper for peer-review that states, categorically, C02 is increasing the greenhouse effect and increasing global temperatures. Why? Because the evidence just isn't there. ["¦]

That's a downright terrifying foreshadowing of the misappropriation of science that would occur virtually overnight, I wager, in a Sarah Palin presidential-administration.

~~L.N

“You ask ‘Is there any Florida?’ I’m inclined to answer ‘No.’ There is no Florida, there’s only this, this England, which nauseates my soul.” – DH Lawrence

Even if ALL OF THE SCIENTISTS working in ALL OF THE PROJECTS had falsified every bit of evidence, and that had been blindly overlooked by EVERYONE ON THE PLANET WHO IS ABLE TO VIEW THEM, there still comes a drawing point:

What is the consequence if this is a hoax?Lower CO2 emissions. More natural ways of travel and a better understanding of how to treat our planet.

As has been alluded to earlier in this topic, I really can't see why, even if climate change is a hoax (which it is not) that it would be such a bad thing to switch from our reliance on fossil fuels to more cleaner and renewable energy sources. I mean we don't have an infinite supply of oil, so we're going to need to think about what we're going to do when that runs out. And it's not like it's a change that can particularly be resisted either, as the supply of fossil fuels dwindles, the prices will go up and industry will seek cheaper alternatives.

Moving towards cleaner energy is a sensible idea even if climate change weren't an issue. The fact that it is an issue merely adds extra weight and necessity to a change that is going to have to happen anyway. I simply don't understand the mentality of denying the facts, what exactly are people trying to cling to? It's clinging to a sinking ship that's all it is...